FtMgAl

AH! HA!!! I think I figured it out. Jeremy said somewhere (I think) that not everyone has a camera. He also has come down on the side of requiring an actual visit to a waymark before posting it. So how do you prove that someone actually visited these Wi-Fi locations? There are several Wi-Fi sites that will give you locations of thousands of hotspots around the world including coordinates. How do you prove that someone wasn't armchair Waymarking? You ask for so much useless information that is available only to someone who has actually been there to collect the information. I haven't bothered Waymarking the local hotspots around here because it looked like too much trouble. But if I am right about the reason for the hoop jumping, then NOW I will log the local hotspots.

Can you or should you? Technically you can log a find for every cache on geocaching.com but it does make you look like a real jerk. From Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines: "Traditional Caches This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. ..." That is the root issue. Will Waymarking have a similar requirement for validation of logs. You can NOT log every cache since my cache is currently still in my garage and "temporarily unavailable" and I will delete your log. Someone tried it a couple of months ago (along with about 1100 other caches). It was immediately deleted. They logged it again with a date of over 2 years ago. I went out to the garage and got the logbook. Sure enough the date was correct. Log stands. So the question is, will TPTB institute a minimum logging standard. Or a maximum logging standard (no pictures because someone may have bought a GPS before they bought a camera). Or will TPTB leave it open to the category manager's discretion (ANARCHY RULES!!!). Personally I vote for the latter. I also think that logging caches for your kid two years after a visit is kind of jerky but that comment doesn't belong in a WM forum.

At the risk of being called a MeToEr... Me to!

Wigle.net uses a very similar form. It would appear that this output is available in NetStumbler though I have never used that program and haven't found any indication that it is. I agree, INFORMATION OVERLOAD! Signal strength and S/N ratio would depend on many factors such as how close you have located the antenna and your Wi-Fi card and whether you have your hand over the card and... All of this seems irrelevant when it comes to answering the question - where is it and how do I connect. About all I want to know is where is it and is it free. My card and included software handle everything else. You go to the location and it either finds the hotspot and allows a connection or it doesn't. I don't have to know the altitude (in feet) of either where I am standing or where the antenna is. MAYBE a signal strength indication (which most software would show) MIGHT be useful just to know that a consistently low level would make it not worth the effort to try but that information is of marginal value to me. Just as to use Waymarking.com I don't need to know the format of the TCP/IP packet needed to request a DNS translation (though this infomation is available if you really care), I don't need nor have all the information requested for Waymarking this category. But I think this might just be an example of the definition of beta test.

Still crashing with roughly the same server error message.

Thanks all. It's a labor of love. And I'm cool with keeping the praise out of the forums...you can just send expensive gifts instead. Where can I send a gift certificate for a Happy Meal?

I'll second the question - 50 cap permanent or beta? I believe a permanent 50 limit would make Waymarking worthless to me. Do you limit cache logs to 50? No. Part of the "fun" is looking at old logs. Part of the fun here will be looking at old WMs. Break up large categories into 50 WM subcategories if needed (and it probably is) but don't just make earlier WMs invisible without special knowledge as archived caches are.

I also had a waymark denied for what I at first believed was a totally unreasonable rule violation. I thought I had complied with the rule but the owner said it must be done differently and in a way that I still believe will eventually cause problems. But I had the ability to comply so I did. I told the manager of my concerns and left it at that. The manager is the boss. If you don't like the rules the manager sets, don't post waymarks in their catagory. If you can't possibly comply with or just don't like the 528 foot rule, don't place caches with GC. Waymarking rules are far looser today than GC. If you don't like the rules a manager sets, as said above, you can go for a new category. If others agree you can be the boss and set the rules that you want. If others don't agree, take consolation that you know a great place that others won't desecrate by over use. IT'S A GAME!!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

I'll twelfth that.

I finally got around to posting my novella on the WTC this morning and uploaded 8 pictures. When I view the log I see only one picture. Yes, when I select an "option" to see all of the gallery photos (right below reading all of the logs anyone has submitted), they are all there. On the GC side, when you uploaded multiple pictures, one was highlighted but there were smaller versions of all the pictures associated with the logs so that you could immediately see any you were interested in. Here we have one picture with no immediate indication that there are more. ANd clicking on the one picture does nothing here while in GC it gave the full view. I also haven't figured out how I would select which picture is shown when the log comes up. I uploaded 8 and the fourth is the one that comes up. Oops. Now when I try to view it the FIFTH picture comes up. Since I didn't change anything in the log it would appear that I have no control of which picture is chosen to be displayed with the log. At this point I MUCH prefer the GC method of displaying pictures. Oops, view it again and the fourth picture comes up again. And again and the sixth comes up. Random picture selection is NOT good.

4000 characters right now I believe. Thanks. That simplifies my binary search significantly. Edit: Never being one to follow the rules... The limit seems to be about 5000 characters including spaces. Just posted a log that Word reports as 2 pages, 10 paragraphs, 54 lines, 954 words, 3973 characters, 4918 characters with spaces. It would still be nice to have that included in the error message. ANd while you're on your break, you could also include the size of the attempted log so I don't have to copy it to Word to see how close I am. Oh ya, and you could include a spell checker. And maybe a voice recognition input option... Thanks.

Can you just tell me what the limit is so that I can post this long log? I really don't want to spend a lot of time guessing.

That is a very good point. I can go to a park that has picnic tables and bring a lunch. That is what it is for. You can do the same. It's a public park. I may or may not be able to hold a reunion on Saturday afternoon with 500 people without getting prior permission. In general wilderness isn't going to be harmed by a few dozen people traveling there every year. Some places, however, would be devastated. That is why public areas have land managers. And the land manager must have the final say and we need to consider how the land manager is going to react when they see what happens when dozens of people show up. Are they going to overreact (as has happened to GC) and ban all of the subject activity? The decision to waymark or not to waymark must be made on an individual basis.

Currently there are 3 main categories - People, Places, and Things. IMHO, commercial sites will most likely always be listed under places. So People and Things should be safe places to surf if you never want to be exposed to capitalism. If you venture into Places, you will need to be selective. Never go to Restaurants, Bars, Entertainment, or Stores/Retail. These dens of inequity are almost always rife with low down evil people trying to make a living. Some of the other subcategories under places might also hide capitalists. But an occasional peek at the dark side is good for you. It builds character. Know your enemy, and all that. <jerkmode = off> Seriously you don't have to look at commercial waymarks if you don't want to. That is what categories are for rather than having one huge pile of waymarks. You get to choose what you want to see and what you don't want to see. If 99% of the waymarks turn out to be commercial and 1% are of interest to you, with proper categories you should still be able to come in, rush past all the categories you don't want to see, and look only at the 1% you do want to see.

Shouldn't that be picky, picky, picky, picky, picky, picky, picky, picky? I tend to side with more subcategories of subcategories rather than finding the right combination of single level categories to dump everything into or dumping waymarks into categories they don't really fit. If you are looking for something specific it shouldn't be that hard to drill down a few more levels to find it. If you are looking for something generic that fits the larger category, aren't you looking for something in a specific geographic area which means you don't care how it is categorized because you will be looking at a map?

Why not? You propose a 49 Star Flag category. TPTB will see that as too limited and hopefully create a category of Flags with a subcategory of 49 star flags. You get to be manager of 49 star flags (assuming you garner enough votes for the subcategory which I hope would not be a problem) and anyone who finds a 49 star flag can either create a waymark for it or, if it already has a waymark assigned, log it. The directory as it stands today is only the beginning with a few entries. I predict there will be thousands of categories in a year or so once people get into this thing.

WHAT?! But I was so sweet! Ya believe that I've got a real estate deal your can't pass up.

Still giving the same error.

Ok, I'll start the disagreement. I am in no way a tree hugger. I write letters to the editor often pointing out the stupidity of most "environmentalists". ("We want solar powered cars." Hey, dummy! Ever seen a solar powered car? You think you can get nine people in one? How big is the collector going to be for a nine passenger van that can cruise all day and into the night at 70 mph? Get real! It isn't physically possible except on a micro scale. And you want to be in a micro car on the Interstate when the semi decides to change to your lane? But I digress... ) Some way off trail sites would be fine, IMHO. I know a great waterfall in Rocky Mountain National Park that should be waymarked even though it is a couple miles past the end of a long trail. I also would like to waymark a local summit because it gives the best view around but I never will. It is the highest point in sight (other than some distant buildings) and gives a great panorama view. It is a sand dune. I visit as often as possible but I am very careful on where I climb. If it were public knowledge it would quickly no longer be the highest point around. It is very fragile. So who monitors the recording of waymarks off trail that might upset the tree huggers? I'm not advocating preserving the area for the native animals. As far as I'm concerned, the proper home for a beach mouse is a beach mouse trap. I'm concerned that we could post waymarks that might be destroyed in a short time so that PEOPLE could no longer enjoy them. I want to maintain them for anyone who is adventurous enough to get off trail and see what's really out there that those who stick to the trails will never see. I'd love to have the category but when it comes time to vote, there will have to be some very tight rules on listing waymarks or I will have to vote against it.

So the category logging requirements for visits are the final word and the guide can't make the requirements stricter? I would have thought they were a minimum requirement and the guide could add additional restrictions. If the manager thought the new restrictions were too strict they could ask the guide to reduce them and, as a last resort, archive the waymark. Back to the great analogy you posted earlier - Geocaching.com is like a Waymark Category Geocache is like a Waymark Geocache Log is like a Waymark Visit (Log) Geocaching.com sets the requirement for real caches of a physical log that must be signed. As a cache owner I can set additional requirements for logging even though most don't. But you seem to be implying that when the category manager says "No log instructions provided." then anything goes. That's not the spirit of Waymarking.

Yes, the waymark guide (person who registers the waymark) gets an email of the feedback. How many points do we get for Forum posts? I've spent far more time in the forums than actually participating in the game. Shouldn't I get credit for that?

Sorry, I need to review the terminology thread. I had clicked LOG YOUR VISIT on a waymark and when I tried to Submit Log the message came back near the the top of the page. I assume my comments were too long. Microsoft Word says there were 1113 words and 5707 characters including spaces. I am nothing if not prolific.

I just recieved the following when trying to post a report. String or binary data would be truncated. The statement has been terminated. I'm sure I'm just too long winded but I gotta be me. It would help my editing if I knew the maximum length of the comments when entering a waymark report. Otherwise I just have to keep truncating and trying until I find what fits. I don't think you need to indicate it on the page where the comments go, just in the error message.

Not going to be TOO high. Just going TO BE high. I can see hundreds of waymarks in the area we now have a single cache. I could already register more waymarks in a 10 mile radius around my house that the total number of caches ever placed in a 25 mile radius. And I'm just one person. So when you say you want to do a 50 mile loop I envision a lot of waymarks. I understand. But I come from a background where my job was to find problems and I think I found a big one. You want a public solution for a personal issue. TB's were an easy way to solve your problem at GC without opening the hole you are trying to open here. A TB had to travel from cache to cache. If you did 10 caches in a day that was a pretty good day. You can do a waymark in less than a minute and they will be so close together... And if you want spend an afternoon and do a 50 mile loop... Now you sit down at the computer to log 50 waymarks. YOU will do them in the order you physically visited them so that you can track your mileage. The evil kid will scramble the order just for the numbers. In the end, your tiny number will be of interest only to you and the competition for high mileage will create angst for everyone else. IMHO, get a spreadsheet and record your car mileage (or hiking distance) on every trip if you want. That won't bother me. That's exactly the way I understood it and the evil kid is going home after every visit and then running back out to the next one. That is my experience also. And I have never walked into a bank and seen a bank robber. Yet the guards there always seem to have guns. Tell that to the 6 year old kid that logged 1100 caches in a week last month and the cache owners who had to decide what to do about each log. For some people it IS about the numbers. And we can't ignore them just because you and I neither care. Or maybe we can. Maybe the standard of anarchy that Waymarking is setting is fine and those that care about numbers will spend their lives here and those who don't will visit occasionally to see if they can find something interesting. Now there's something we can both agree on.

Just because one category has loose requirements doesn't mean they all do. It's possible for a category owner to set their category as "open" and anyone can log anything, or they can set it so they have to approve all submissions. I highly doubt that anyone would want to approve all benchmark submissions, but I can certainly see certain logging requirements. Especially for the "visit" as mentioned above. Sorry I missed this yesterday. Currently Benchmarks have no logging instructions because a waymark can not be added directly to Benchmarks. There are subcategories. Currently there is one subcategory - UK Trigpoints. "Instructions for placing waymarks into this category: You might also want to check Teasel's excellent Trigpointing site at http://www.trigpointinguk.com/ Instructions for logging waymarks of this category: No log instructions provided." In other words, go to a website that is similar to Geocaching and find a trigpoint that hasn't been reported here in Waymarking yet. Report it and it's yours. If someone else has already reported it and has an approved waymark for it, log it. Nothing in those directions indicates to me that I have to leave this chair. If you read the 10 currently claimed waymarks, 2 politely ask for a photo but don't seem to demand one. The rest have no requirements for logging. Most people seems to be creating waymarks like they were cache logs rather than as if they were virtual caches. The paradigm shift hasn't taken hold yet. Sitting at a computer creating and logging waymarks isn't the spirit of Waymarking and it certainly isn't the spirit of benchmarking. But right now those seem to be the rules covering much of Waymarking. This is why I can understand some angst when someone proposes moving BMs over here. There are rules where they are. Here there is anarchy. For McDonald's anarchy is good. For benchmarking anarchy is very bad. Ok, maybe as bootron indicated I'm missing something. Maybe everyone is supposed to know that they can only POST waymarks while sitting at a computer rather than VISIT them. Maybe the category owner isn't supposed to approve waymarks unless they think the claim was made by someone who actually got out of their chair. Ok - the difference between de jure and de facto. But if the category owner has it set up for automatic approval of additions and waymark owners doesn't care who visits...